I just got back from seeing the movie An Inconvenient Truth, featuring Al
Gore. Its somewhat difficult to evaluate this film, because you can't really
call it "good" since the film points out so many problems. It is definitely a
well done and thoughtful presentation however, which I highly recommend that
everyone see.

Aside from the central message on global warming, I think that Al Gore did an
excellent job of promoting science and the use of science in shaping our public
policy and informing our daily lives. This is where I feel that the film was an
excellent success. The film was a success because Al Gore laid a foundational
groundwork and used that foundation to make the case. This is exactly what the
Democratic Party should be doing on every issue.

The best thing about this film is that it defends science and reason and
shows how science plays important roles in our daily lies and how science is
critical for our future success and survival. Science cannot only be used by
industry to create technology, science must also be used by the public to
make decisions. Without this latter case, science has no morality and, more
importantly, our morality has no science.

In a world that is being rapidly changed by technology, our instincts are no
longer necessarily suitable to the situation at hand. Our lives are no longer in
the ancient context. Our evolved morality no longer corresponds to the
situations that face us. Instinct is no longer good enough and the stakes are so
high that only science and reason can truly guide our judgment.

While this is not the central theme of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore does
make this case.

It is remarkable to think, however, that a thoughtful and articulate man like
Al Gore was denied the presidency in America, and that instead George Bush, an
inarticulate and uninsightful man who seems to despise science and reason is the
leader of the most powerful country in the world. It is truly amazing.

Al Gore has said that he does not plan to run for president in 2008, but I
really hope that he does, because the Democrats don't have another candidate
that comes close to the quality an caliber of Gore, and I think that Hilary
Clinton would be a horrible choice as the Democratic nominee. Ms. Clinton has
too many political and cultural enemies, too much baggage, and quite frankly,
she's to conservative as well.

An Inconvenient Truth is not showing everywhere, which is unfortunate, but it
is showing in most cities. To learn more or find a theater near you visit the
official website:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

The three issues that the Republicans have brought before the Senate in the
last few days are "defining marriage as between a man and a woman", a bill to
make the full repeal of the estate tax permanent, and a bill to ban flag burning.

The Republicans claim that they are trying to "defend marriage", by ensuring
that they restrict it to a select group of people. Republicans claim that
marriage is the foundation of society, so one would think that they would want
to expand the role of marriage in society, not restrict it. If conservatives are
troubled by "the homosexual lifestyle", then why don't they encourage
homosexuals to get married? The "homosexual lifestyle" is essentially the single
lifestyle, and as long as it remains impossible for homosexuals to get married
they will of course remain single.

The issues go well beyond this however.

Conservatives complain about the "breakdown" of the institution of the
family, but do they explain this "breakdown", do they give reasons for it? They
blame this breakdown on "attacks by liberalism", homosexuality, feminism, and a
lack of prayer in schools, etc.

The fact is, however, that none of things things are causes of the breakdown
of the so-called "traditional" family. In fact all of these things are symptoms
of the same root cause, which is
industrialization and market economy capitalism.

That's the irony of all this, the real root cause of change in American
society is the very institution that conservatives so fiercely defend:
Capitalism.

Many of these changes are simply inevitable and are unavoidable with the
changes that come with industrialization, but others have been exacerbated by
the American style market economy.

Several historical facts must be put in perspective to understand the
"family", however.

What is a "family" and why did families evolve?

The family has traditionally been the core economic unit of society.
Throughout most of history the household as been the primary place of
production, and all family members were involved, including children from as
soon as they were old enough to participate. Prior to the 18th century in
England and America, children began "working" around age 5 in the home, became
significant contributors to the family income by age 7, and had generated major
profits for the family by age 18. Women have always worked. Its just that
until the industrial revolution all business was run out of the home, so there
was no need to leave home to work, for either men or women. Yes, men typically
took care of the business outside the home, but the home was effectively the
"corporate headquarters". Women did plenty of work there and there was plenty to
do, not just raise children, that was only one aspect.

There was a division of labor between the sexes, rooted primarily in utility.
Women did split their time between raising the children and preparing the
meals for the family, which meant preparing meals for the workers effectively,
but they often did much more than this, they also often took care of book
keeping, arranged orders, directed the labor of the children, and managed
inventories. You must keep in mind that every home in America when America was
founded was effectively its own little factory. 95% of all production in America
was done in the home in 1800. Today less than 1% is done in the home.

This dramatic restructuring of the economy IS THE ROOT CAUSE of the
changes in family structure, the role of the family in society, and the
significance of the family.

A family is no longer itself an economic enterprise that is needed for
survival. Today business people are pressured by the market to form cooperative
groups known as corporations. 200+ years ago the pressure was to form a family.
One person alone can't produce much, but by forming a family a person could
automatically produce a group of 8 to 15 people who worked as a small
"corporation" and extended families could reach into the hundreds.

Today, however, the economy has expanded well beyond this and the family is
no longer a business unit like it was in the past.

Children are no longer economic assets as they were a hundred years ago or
more. Today children are major economic burdens who never generate a profit for
the family until they are out of the house, if then. The return on investment
for children has consistently diminished over the past 200 years and today it
may actually be the case that there is zero return on investment for most
families. These economic changes have had major influences on family structures.

To add to all of this, marketing has usurped the power of the family to
influence society. Who has the biggest influence on society today? Corporations.
What is the motivation of their influence? Profit motive. When families had more
influence over the economy, they also had more influence over society. Now the
economy is rooted in the corporation, not the family, and thus the entire basis
of our culture has shifted from the family to the corporation.

Families always had a completely different interest in their children than
corporations do. The family has an inherent interest in trying to influence the
behavior of their children in ways that both benefit the family and benefit the
child. To the family the child was both a worker, i.e. provider, and also an
offspring, someone that they loved and cared for and wanted to succeed. So,
families had an interest in instilling "positive values" in their children, both
for the sake of the child and the sake of the family itself.

Corporations, however, have no such direct interest. Their immediate interest
is to view the child as a consumer. Thus, now that our society is dominated by
the corporation, the values of the society are the values instilled by
corporations. Families have been weakened, not as gays have come out of the
closet, but as corporations have taken on the leading role in society. The
interest of the corporation, and thus "the market economy", is to influence
behavior in ways that encourage people to make poor decisions, not good
decisions (to be fair the direct interest is not to influnce people to bad bad decisions, but the net result of marketing is to induce bad decisions). The primary relationship between corporation and child is that the
child has money (or access to the money) the corporation wants, and the corporation seeks to influence
the child to engage in behavior that will result in funneling money to the corporation.

It cannot be any other way in a capitalist economy, that's how it works.

Furthermore, now that the home is no longer the basis of the economy, it no
longer makes sense for women to "stay there". There is nothing to do at home,
most of the work takes place outside the home. Women have always contributed to
the economy, and by leaving the home all they are doing is acting in accordance
with the free market to pursue jobs where jobs are, i.e. outside the home.

The Republicans fail to acknowledge that it is indeed the free market that
explains the breakup of the family, not "gays getting the right to marry".

The analysis that I have provided here demonstrates a massive failure on the
part of out society and especially the Democratic Party and so-called
"liberals", because instead of using these provable facts to take charge of the
debate on social issues, the Democrats and liberals are conceding the debate to
the conservatives and falling back on empty slogans and emotional appeals. Our
news media fails to discuss the issues or do any significant reporting on these
types of issues, and our talk shows and analysts are filled with either
conservatives who misrepresent everything or post-modernists who can't explain
their way out of a paper bag.

What is to be done? I don't know, because it seems that rationalism and
empirical data are taboo in the public sphere in America today.

What is certain is that conservatives tend to be wrong about everything, but
no one else is stepping up to provide the reason why they are wrong and to give
voice to the correct anwsers.

I recently received a mass e-mail message from the Democratic Party asking
"what would you do if you were setting the agenda". This is what they had to
say:

Imagine for a moment that you're Republican Bill Frist, the Senate's
Majority Leader, and you have the power and awesome responsibility to
control what issues the Senate considers and when it considers them. Knowing
everything you do about the crises facing our nation and the things that
most concern Americans, would your top priority be to:

A) Force the administration to change its failed strategy in
Iraq

B) Help consumers walloped by $3.00 a gallon gas and take
steps to reduce our oil addiction

C) Pass the first minimum wage increase in 10 years and
develop plans to create good jobs in America

D) Expand educational opportunities for college by providing
relief from skyrocketing college tuition

E) Ensure access to health care for every American

F) Amend the Constitution to deprive gay people of equal
rights under the law

As someone who cares deeply about this nation, its problems and its
future, you probably said A, B, C, D, or E. But Republican Majority Leader
Frist chose F.

The question was rhetorical, of course, and there was no way to actually
reply to the e-mail, but I went to the Democratic Party website and replied from
there. This is my response:

As a Leftist I think that the agenda of the Democratic Party should be to
fundamentally make the case for Leftist principles the way that the
Republican Party fundamentally makes the case for its Right-wing policy.

If *I* were setting the agenda this is what I would do:

Promote and defend secularism, science, and rationalism both in public
and in the Senate.

Nothing should be done to change the market price of petroleum products.
The market price of fuel encourages conservation and efficiency. Taking
action to reduce the price of fuel is counter productive.

Move for a Global Minimum Wage to be paid by all employers from
developed countries when the employ workers in developing nations, or when
they purchase goods from suppliers in developing nations. This would require
a treaty with the G8 and all other developed nations.

In conjunction with the Global Minimum Wage, also move to remove all
tariffs on foreign trade.

Completely rework the college scholarship system for pubic universities.
All public scholarships should be terminated and replaced with a system that
compensates based on grades. Students should be reimbursed 95% for As, 75%
for Bs, and 50% for Cs. No reimbursement for Ds and Fs.

Promote and defend a fundamental ideology as the Republicans have done.
Republican social and economic claims must be countered with the factual
analysis which shows that social changes are products of economic changes.
Social Changes in our society that conservatives complain about are in fact
products of free-market capitalism and industrialization. The movement of
the home based economy to an economy dominated by multi-national
corporations, where 98% of production takes place outside of the home, is
what has led to the major social changes in America over the past 100 years,
especially the past 50 years. Yes women used to work in the home, back when
the majority of businesses were run from the home.

Stop claiming that healthcare is a right. Healthcare is not a right, and
should never be considered as such. Healthcare is a luxury that we, as the
richest nation in the history of the world, should provide to all citizens
both because it is cheaper in the long run, and because we have the means to
do so, but it is not a right. Just because healthcare is not a right does
not mean that we should not provide universal healthcare.

Remove the special taxation laws for capital gains. The taxation system
can be simplified and made fair by taxing all forms of income equally. It is
indefensible to have workers subsidizing investors by taxing workers more
than investors.

Increase taxes on the wealthy and reduce taxes on the poor and middle
class. Defend this with the same reasoning used by Thomas Jefferson, Teddy
Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower: The wealthy
receive the most benefit from society and the State, and thus deserve to pay
the most for the benefits that they receive.

Tax the profits of the petroleum industry and use that money for research & development projects for alternative energy. Allow the petroleum industry to get their own money back by participating in this R&D if they choose.

The Republican Party has been faltering for 4 years now, yet in this entire
time the Democrats have shown their incompetence by their inability to provide
and substantial alternative to Republican ideas and programs. Despite the
Republicans being in an extremely weak and exposed position, the Democrats
remain unable to capitalize the the events, because they have no core message,
not set of principles, and are afraid to take on a truly progressive agenda.
They continue to do nothing, and provide few meaningful alternatives. They offer
no solutions to the issues that people really care about, because they are
unable to challenge Republican ideology in any meaningful way.

This article is meant to address the claims that are being used by religious
organizations as they challenge the points made in The Da Vince Code. A
critical aspect of the article is the discussion of the mythology of Jesus,
showing that while claims made in The Da Vinci Code may be false, the
claims used to refute The Da Vinci Code are often false as well.

With all of the fallacies in The Da Vinci Code it gives priests, preachers,
and fundamentalists the perfect opportunity to convince people of even more
fallacies. Many of the things that Dan Brown presents as "true" in his work of
"historical fiction" are in fact false, gross misstatements, or products of
proven mistakes or misrepresentations, and this provides an easy
target for Christians to fight against.

I have already been able to see many historical fallacies being promoted by
Christians in opposition to The Da Vinci Code. Here is an analysis of
some of the
"best":

1) CLAIM: Jesus was merely a man, not God. Brown says that the “pagan”
Roman emperor Constantine, for the purpose of consolidating his power,
created the “myth” that Jesus was resurrected after being crucified.
(231-234).

ANSWER: Constantine, who converted to Christianity and ended Rome’s
persecution of Christians, convened the Council of Nicea in 325, but only to
sort out differences among church leaders, all of whom believed Jesus was
divine. Early church historians referred routinely to Christ’s divinity,
including Ignatius (105 A.D.) and Clement (150 A.D.)

Ironically, there is plenty of support for the claim that there was no Jesus
at all. Nevertheless, Constantine did not convert to Christianity until he was
on his deathbed at the very least, if this even happened. So many of the stories
about Constantine are forged that it is hard to separate fact from fiction, but
certainly we do know that many of the stories about Constantine were fabricated
by later priests and popes in order to lay claim to imperial property and
provide a basis for their power, claiming that it was granted to them by
Constantine, who had for all his life been the high priest of Deus Sol
Invictus. Constantine always believed that Jesus was just another
representation of the sun god Helios.

Additionally, not all of the early Christians did think that Jesus was
divine. Yes, there were many early church fathers that did refer to him as
divine, but there were others that did not. The ones that didn't believe he was
divine have simply been rejected, and are not counted as
"true Christians" today, so this self-imposed filtering is just a bit of
nonsense. Everyone who didn't believe in a divine Jesus was rejected, but
that doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of people who didn't believe in a
divine Jesus.

3) CLAIM: The four New Testament Gospels (the Books of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John) comprise a false account. Numerous ancient writings tell a
more truthful story.

ANSWER: Brown bases his view on 52 books collectively called the Gnostic
Gospels, discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. All were written more
than a century after the Biblical Gospels were written. None of these books
has any tie to eyewitnesses in Christ’s time, unlike the Gospels themselves.

The Gospels have no ties to eyewitness accounts either. None of the stories
about Jesus are based on eyewitness accounts. All of the Gospels about Jesus,
including the ones that didn't make it into the Bible, such as the Gospel of
Thomas, were written as if they were eyewitness accounts, but none of them were.
This is most obvious when dealing with the story of the birth of Jesus, which is
written as if it were based on eyewitness accounts, even though that would
obviously have been impossible. The same can be said for all of the other myths
of the ancient world. Stories about Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Orion, Hercules,
etc., are written as if they were eye witness accounts too.

5) CLAIM: Jesus did not die on the cross but married Mary Magdalene and
fathered children with her. Brown claims the church was led by Mary
Magdalene, whose role was covered up by a ruthless Catholic Church.

ANSWER: Jesus’ crucifixion and reappearance after the resurrection are
perhaps the best-documented theological events in history, with literally
hundreds of eyewitnesses. The Roman pagan historian Flavius Josephus
recorded the event this way:

"He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that
loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them
alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and
ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."[3]

The nonsense about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having children with
her came from the Plantard forgeries and the Gnostic gospels of Phillip and
“Mary Magdala.”

First of all, the quote that is referenced here is widely acknowledged to be
full of errors. Secondly, the writing from which the quote is supposedly taken
was not written until 93 CE and would, even at best, have been based on claims
of other people, not a first hand account. Adding to that the oldest existing
copy of the quote comes from a Christian source from the 800s, and there are
many different copies of the text which don't mention Christ at all. For the many errors in this quote
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Thirdly, the Bible has many contradictions about the number of people Jesus
supposedly appeared before after he died. All of the books except one state that
"only a few" people saw Jesus after his supposed resurrection:

Acts 10:

33 Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the
Lord has commanded you to tell us."

34 Then Peter began to speak: ... 39 "We are witnesses of everything he
did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging
him on a tree, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and
caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by
witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after
he rose from the dead.

The number of people, and who they were, that Jesus appeared before according
to the Bible is different according to every account.

There are no claims of a crucified person, Jesus
or otherwise, appearing to people after death, aside from in the Bible. Likewise there are
dozens of other myths from the same time about other people or man-gods who
supposedly came back from the dead and appeared before people too.

The claim that Jesus appeared before 500 people comes from one source, Paul,
whom we know never saw Jesus at all or had any contact with anyone who had ever
actually seen Jesus. None of the Gospels state that Jesus appeared to 500
people, only that he appeared to the apostils and a couple more (each Gospel
lists different people that he appeared before). Far from being "the best
documented theological event in history", the story of Jesus' death and
resurrection is quite contradictory between all the accounts, and none of them
can be considered "documentation", since none of them are eye-witness accounts,
they are all STORIES.

Fourthly, however, even if we take the Gospel accounts of Jesus' death at
face value, and this whole event isn't just a fabricated myth, then that does
nothing to say that he didn't simply survive the crucifixion (he was supposedly
taken down after a short period of time according to the story, not left for
weeks to rot on the cross as was typical) and then leave town.

8) CLAIM: The “sacred feminine” was at the heart of the early church, but
was ruthlessly suppressed. “It was man, not God, who created the concept of
‘original sin,’ whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of
the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy”
(238).

ANSWER: Once again (and throughout the book), Brown calls Scripture a
colossal lie. Far from oppressing women, the church has proved to be a
liberating force. Women have achieved unprecedented status in nations where
Christianity has had an impact. Jesus honored women among His followers.
Mary Magdalene was the first to discover the empty tomb, see the resurrected
Christ, and to tell the other believers.

Let's see, the Bible states that wives "should submit to their husbands",
Jesus had basically no relationship with his mother, the 12 apostles were all
men, Eve is the one who "cursed us all", women haven't been allowed to have
leadership roles in the church until just recently, against much church
opposition, etc., etc.

In what way did Christianity help women? Women were leaders in civic and
religious life in the ancient world until Christianity came along. Women had
positions of power in society in Greece and Rome and among many of the other
so-called pagan cultures in Europe prior to Christianity. What examples are
there of the church "liberating women"? By making them cover their heads and
bodies and become nuns? Women have achieved unprecedented status in nations
where Christianity has had any impact - IN SPITE OF Christianity, not because of
it.

With the coming of The Da Vinci Code to the big screen many Christian
organizations, especially Catholic ones, are heavily criticizing the story. To
be sure The Da Vinci Code is full of factual errors and presents a very
twisted distortion of history. The Catholic Church is upset with The Da Vinci
Code because it humanizes Jesus and presents him has a "real person",
claiming that the story undermines Jesus' divinity, but the real irony is that
The Da Vinci Code presents Jesus as more real than he really was.

Ultimately The Da Vinci Code lends support to the real fallacy, which
is that Jesus actually existed and was a real person. As much as The Da Vinci
Code presents itself as uncovering the "hidden truth", all it does is lend
even more support to the biggest lie, which is that Jesus was a real live
historical figure.

The reality is that The Da Vinci Code is based on the many fictional
accounts of the Jesus figure. Yes, The Da Vinci Code is based on various
texts about Jesus, but these texts are just as much fiction as the Gospels of
the Bible are. The real truth is that all of the works about "Jesus" were
fictional and mythological accounts, from which the Catholic Church chose four
of the earliest ones that were the most believable. In reality there were close
to 100 different stories written about "Jesus", and there were even more similar
stories written about other mythical "saviors of mankind".

The Jesus story was not new or novel when it became popular. Stories about
saviors born from virgins who had been impregnated by a god were as common in
the ancient world as sci-fi stories are today. Likewise, stories about saviors
who died for the sins of the people were common as well. Stories about half-god
half-men who were killed and resurrected were equally as common as the afore
mentioned motifs, as were stories about god-men that could turn water into wine,
heal diseases, and walk on water. These are all common themes in many different
mythological stories that were popular at the time that Christianity was born.

If we look at the structure of the Catholic religion we see that it mirrors
the common pagan religions of the day. Effectively:

Jesus = Helios / Dionysus / Osirus / Zoroaster / Mithras / etc.

Mary = Diana / Isis / Ianna / Hera / etc.

12 Apostles = 12 Signs of the Zodiac, a common theme in mythology of the
time

Demons = Devils / Imps / Pan / Lesser gods (the word devil comes from
Persian language and was introduced to Greek culture after the conquest of
Alexander the Great)

Thomas Paine, one of the founding figures of the United States, understood
the role that the earlier Greek and Roman religions played in the development of
Christian mythology:

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to
the story of Jesus Christ being the son of God. He was born when the heathen
mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology
had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the
extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be
the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing, at that time, to
believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods
with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according
to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds: the story, therefore, had
nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the
opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or
Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews who
had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always
rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian
church sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct
incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed
founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed
was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about
twenty or thirty thousand: the statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana
of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed into the canonization of
saints; the Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists
had saints for everything; the church became as crowded with one, as the
Pantheon had been with the other, and Rome was the place of both. The
Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient
Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet
remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.
- The Age of Reason; Thomas Paine, 1794

Indeed, some of the early saints were simply popular gods that were
re-branded as Christian symbols. Just as each little god of the Greeks and
Romans was dedicated to a specific role, such as the "god of sea fairing", "the
god of travel", "the god of love", "the god of good harvest", etc., the saints
simply took on these same roles. There are thousands of saints, just as their
were thousands of lesser gods among the pagans. Pagan temples were in fact
converted into places of worship for saints. Pagan tokens became saint tokens,
etc.

There is really nothing at all in the Jesus story that is new or original;
it's all there in hundreds of different myths from all over the Roman world.

Many of the early Christians didn't believe that Jesus was a real person,
they believed that Jesus represented an idea or that Jesus was a myth, whose
story was meant as a metaphor.

The irony is that The Da Vinci Code leads people to believe that there
is more historical evidence for Jesus than there really is, when in fact the
case is just the opposite. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that at the very
least the character of Jesus in the Bible is a product of fiction and myth. If
there is any historical basis to the Jesus story at all, then
it is small and buried beneath a mountain of mythology and fantasy.

Indeed even the most celebrated part of the Jesus story, his supposed
crucifixion, is very much in doubt. In truth there was no early belief that
Jesus was killed on a cross. This is a story that came much later and has been
affected by suspect translations. Even the Bible states in some sections that
Jesus was killed by being hanged from a tree.

Acts 10:39 "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the
Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God
raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He
was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already
chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a
curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we
might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been
healed.

The Gospels in their original Greek did not refer to any crucifix but used
the word "stauros" (Mark 18:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, John 19:17),
meaning a stake or vertical pole. The Talmud refers to a
Yeshua (the Hebrew version of the name Jesus) who claimed to be the messiah that
was stoned to death and then hung from a tree.

Early Christians worshiped the cross for reasons that had nothing to do with
the death of Jesus, as is illustrated by this defense of cross worship by an
early Christian father, which lists many reasons for worshiping the cross, but
never mentions Jesus:

The charge of worshipping a cross. The heathens
themselves made much of crosses in sacred things; nay, their very idols were
formed on a crucial frame.

As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall
claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of
wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure.
Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own
figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material
is the same: the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual
body of a god. If, however, there arises a question of difference on this
point what, (let me ask,) is the difference between the Athenian Pallas, or
the Pharian Ceres, and wood formed into a cross, when each is represented by
a rough stock, without form, and by the merest rudiment of a statue of
unformed wood? Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an
erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its
mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of
course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to excuse you, for
you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect piece of wood, while
others consecrate to the sacred purpose a complete structure. The truth,
however, after all is, that your religion is all cross, as I shall show. You
are indeed unaware that your gods in their origin have proceeded from this
hated cross. Now, every image, whether carved out of wood or stone, or
molten in metal, or produced out of any other richer material, must needs
have had plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well, then, this modeller,
before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross, because
even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed
outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards, and the back takes a
straight direction, and the shoulders project laterally, if you simply place
a man with his arms and hands outstretched, you will make the general
outline of a cross. Starting, then, from this rudimental form and prop, as
it were, he applies a covering of clay, and so gradually completes the
limbs, and forms the body, and covers the cross within with the shape which
he meant to impress upon the clay; then from this design, with the help of
compasses and leaden moulds, he has got all ready for his image which is to
be brought out into marble, or clay, or whatever the material be of which he
has determined to make his god. (This, then, is the process:) after the
cross-shaped frame, the clay; after the clay, the god. In a well-understood
routine, the cross passes into a god through the clayey medium. The cross
then you consecrate, and from it the consecrated (deity) begins to derive
his origin. By way of example, let us take the case of a tree which grows up
into a system of branches and foliage, and is a reproduction of its own
kind, whether it springs from the kernel of an olive, or the stone of a
peach, or a grain of pepper which has been duly tempered under ground. Now,
if you transplant it, or take a cutting off its branches for another plant,
to what will you attribute what is produced by the propagation? Will it not
be to the grain, or the stone, or the kernel? Because, as the third stage is
attributable to the second, and the second in like manner to the first, so
the third will have to be referred to the first, through the second as the
mean. We need not stay any longer in the discussion of this point, since by
a natural law every kind of produce throughout nature refers back its growth
to its original source; and just as the product is comprised in its primal
cause, so does that cause agree in character with the thing produced. Since,
then, in the production of your gods, you worship the cross which originates
them, here will be the original kernel and grain, from which are propagated
the wooden materials of your idolatrous images. Examples are not far to
seek. Your victories you celebrate with religious ceremony as deities; and
they are the more august in proportion to the joy they bring you. The frames
on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were,
the very core of your pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of
your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores,
your standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers
before Jupiter himself, But all that parade of images, and that display of
pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. in like manner also,
in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred
care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are
ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.
source: Ad Nationes; 197 :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Helios surrounded by 12 virgins, 12 disciples, and 12 signs of the zodiac

Apollo with halo

Apollo with halo

Christ as the sun-god from tomb in St. Peter's Basilica, discovered in 1942

Early image of Christ as "The Good Shepherd" (A common pre-Christian theme)

Jesus performing "miracle of loaves and fishes" depicted in royal robes

All of the earliest images of Jesus show him without a beard. The
philosopher's beard and robes that he is traditionally seen in now were added
around the 6th century CE.

From 420 CE, this is one of the earliest images of Jesus' crucifixion

Isis and Horus - Mary and Christ

Isis and Horus mosaic from The House of Dionysus

pre-Christian Roman figure

Mary - Queen of Heaven

Hera - Queen of Heaven

Helios the sun god "walked on the water" and had "12 disciples". Helio's
resurrection after three days of death was celebrated on December 25th - Sol
Invictus (Invincible Sun). The sun "died" on December 22nd, the winter solstice, the shortest
day of the year. The sun was "reborn" on December 25th, 3 days later. Sol
Invictus was appropriated by the Christians to become Christmas.

The Emperor Aurelian dedicated the Sol Invictus Temple on December
25th, 274 CE. The dedication celebration was called The Birthday of the
Invincible Sun.

From Greek mythology the mortal hero Orion was fathered by the god Neptune.
While Orion's story does not parallel that of Jesus', he was claimed to be able
to walk on water.

Dionysus was a man-god of peace who was conceived by Zeus and a mortal woman
named Semele. Before his birth Dionysus was merged with Zeus and then born from
the god. Dionysus was a bringer of peace and was said to be able to convert
water into wine. He was eventually tortured, killed, and resurrected according
to myth.

The Egyptian god Osirus was one of the most important gods. He was the god of
the dead, and considered to be a merciful god that judged the souls of the dead
to see if they could enter the eternal afterlife. Osirus gave birth to the
child-god Horus. Osirus was said to have died and been resurrected. The yearly growth of grain
was said to represent the resurrection of Osirus and thus bread was seen as the
body of Osirus. Every year "The Passion of Osirus" was performed as a religious
play in which Osirus was killed, dismembered, rejoined, and then reborn. After
Osirus is resurrected Horus sends him on to the afterlife and then there is a
battle between Horus and Set in which Horus defeats the evil Set.

After the Greek and Egyptian cultures had merged, due to the conquest of
Alexander the Great, the cult of Osirus and Horus was merged with the cult of
Dionysus. The rituals and myths of these cults were also merged with Platonic
philosophy, which was ostensibly monotheistic and believed that the material
world is corrupt and the afterlife is a place of purity where the soul rejoices
after death.

he April 23rd speaking event actually took place on two days, the 21st and
the 23rd. Together there were about 40 attendees, most of which were college
students. After the video presentation of Ancient Monster Hunters I gave
a 45 presentation that expanded on the information presented in the video.

The focus of my presentation dealt with the extent to which fossils have
influenced cultures from around the world and how the rise of Christianity led
directly to the loss of knowledge about fossils in Greek and Roman civilization
and prevented later generations from understanding them.

The accepted view for the past 200 years in Western Civilization has been
that "savages" and the ancients would have been incapable of comprehending what
fossils were. The reality, however, is that virtually every culture in the world
for the past several thousand years, except for Christian and Islamic culture,
has recognized fossils and incorporated them into their worldviews.

In fact, the story of Noah and the "Great Flood" from the book of Genesis was
likely inspired by fossils as well. Many ancient cultures believed in a world
wide flood, because many different cultures, especially throughout Mesopotamia,
observed fossilized seashells and fish on mountaintops. Seashells are by far the
most common types of fossils, and were prevalent across Mesopotamia and around
the world. We do have several recorded accounts from as far back as 500 BCE of
people specifically stating that they believed that the world had been covered
in water at one time because of the shells that they had found in the mountains.
It is very likely that these observations and beliefs date back even farther and
influenced flood myths in many cultures, including the flood myth of the
Sumerians, The Epic of Gilgamesh, which the story of Noah is based
upon.

For ancients, who saw seashells on mountaintops, the conclusion that the
mountains must have been under water at some time was a logical conclusion, but
they were unaware of plate tectonics of course, and thus had no way of knowing
that the mountains had been pushed up from what had once been seabed.

Fossils were extremely important in Greek culture, both to the pagans and the
materialists. Fossils became central to Greek pagan beliefs, and they became
central installations in several Greek cities and were often on display in Greek
temples. For Greek and Roman pagans fossils validated their mythological
beliefs, and were thus very important symbols for their religions.

For the Greek materialists fossils were integral to their theory of evolution
and their understanding of earth history.

For these reasons fossils and knowledge of fossils were majors targets of
destruction for the Christians when they came to power. Fossils were important
items that validated the beliefs of non-Christians, and were thus a threat to
Christian beliefs and cultural domination. As such, Christians destroyed fossils
and did not teach about them. A couple hundred years after the Christians came
to power, knowledge of fossils had been forgotten in Western Civilization. For
Christians the basis of knowledge was divine revelation, and the natural world
was seen as something corrupt and not worthy of study. As such, for the next
thousand plus years fossils were generally ignored and overlooked by Christian
theologians and scholars.

When Europeans came to the Americas they encountered the Native Americans,
many of which had a profound understanding of fossils and had integrated
knowledge of fossils into their worldview. One of the first things that the
Aztecs did when they came in contact with Cortez was show him their collection
of fossils, which they claimed (and probably truly believed) were the remains of
giants whom their ancestors had slain. This was a myth that validated the power
of the Aztec people.

Western paleontology was heavily bolstered by the work and knowledge of the
Native Americans, who introduced Europeans to many new fossils. The Europeans,
however, gave no credit to the natives, shipping back tons of fossils to Europe,
while taking all of the credit for discovering them.

Fossils held great cultural significance to many native tribes. In fact, the
Zuni tribe had developed an origin myth that is essentially equivalent to the
theory of evolution. They did so because of their careful observations of
nature.

The Zuni creation story states that the earth is older than can be known, and
that the earth was originally covered in water. In the early times there were
many small bizarre creatures. Over time life developed and changed and grew
bigger. During this time humans existed as small slimy creatures that lived in
the water and were preyed upon by great monstrous creatures. Then the children
of the sun-god came and began to dry out the earth so that land would be
exposed. Life, including the proto-humans, moved onto land where it continued to
evolve and change. On land even larger and greater predators developed, which
continued to prey on the early weak humans.

Then the gods came and began killing all of the giant beasts with lightening,
turning them to stone. Then, after all of the great beasts were killed, humans
were able to develop and prosper.

This is the Zuni story of creation. It was developed based on fossil evidence
and it closely resembles our present evolutionary understanding of the history
of life on earth.

The fact of the matter is that human history has been significantly
misinterpreted in Western Civilization because of the effects of Christianity.
Not only did Christians eliminate much knowledge of natural history when they
came to power, but they inculcated Western Civilization with a worldview that
was divorced from reality and nature. As a result, Western culture has tended to
view all cultures as being as divorced from reality as their own, but in reality
most cultures have been much more naturalistic than Christian culture and based
their understandings of the world on natural observations.

One question that I received after the presentation was:

What would explain why it is that so many cultures developed mythological
explanations for fossils, or, in a more general sense, why do mythological
explanations for phenomena seem more prevalent historically than naturalistic
ones.

My answer at the time was that I did not know, but I think now that I do have
an answer for this question. I believe the answer is that explanations for
phenomena that have a perceived social value are naturally selected for. Myths
are typically moralistic. They offer explanations that have direct social
implications. When the cultures found giant bones they could explain them in
many ways. Naturalistic explanations typically don't have any direct moral or
social implication, they do not enforce sets of values or lend support to social
systems. Mythological stories, however, can use the weight of observable
evidence, such as giant bones, to lend support to moralistic stories that affect
social behavior. Myths dominated ancient cultures because their main purpose was
not to explain the world for the sake of explaining the world, their purpose was
to support social institutions.

"Look at the power of our gods! Our gods have killed giants and turned
them to stone, as you can see from these giant bones. Do you think that you can
defy gods that are powerful enough to kill giants? Only a fool would think that
they could defy such powerful gods! The gods have put me into power to rule and
control you. If you defy me you defy the will of the gods, and as you can see,
the gods are more powerful than any man. You can never hope to defy the gods,
and you can never hope to defy me!"

The fact that mythological explanation serve some ulterior purpose has a lot
to do with their use to explain phenomena, as we can see with the current debate
of evolution and creationism in America today. The supporters of creation
mythology support it for moralistic reasons, not for scientific ones.

Timeline of Fossil References

~50,000 years ago - Neanderthals collected fossil mollusk shells and used
them to make necklaces.

~420 CE - Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine) Recalls having seen giant
bones during his pagan years. Recommends using the pagan belief that there
used to be giants to convince people to believe in the accounts in Genesis
of people living to be hundreds of years old. Augustine also established the
Christian doctrine that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

~530 CE - The Code of Justinian legally demands the destruction of all
non-Christian culture and scholarship.

~700 CE - Japanese describe a fossilized mound of sea shells in great
detail.

~1020 - Muslim scholar publishes work on erosion, and argues that fossils
are not the remains of previously living things, but rather just types of
rocks.

~1500 - Leonardo da Vinci refutes common Christian explanation of fossil
shells in the mountains as evidence of "The Great Flood", and refutes the
dismissal of other fossils as unimportant.

1590 - The head of a dragon sculpted in Austria is noted to have been
modeled on a "dragon skull" that was found in a rock quarry in 1335.

1668 - Robert Hooke presents a lecture to the Royal Society of Britain
stating that fossil shells in mountains are not evidence of a global flood
as described in the book of Genesis, but rather that mountains have been
raised up by earthquakes from what was once sea bed.

Recommended reading:

The First Fossil Hunters - Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times.
Mayor, AdrienneFossil Legends of the First Americans. Mayor, AdrienneThe Forgotten Revolution - How Science was Born in 300 BC and Why it Had to
Be Reborn. Russo, LucioAncient Worlds, Modern Reflections - Philosophical Perspectives on Greek and
Chinese Science and Culture. Lloyd, G.E.R.

Fossils,
Mythology, and Science in the Ancient World
Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 3:00pm

Recent reexamination of the historical record
shows that ancient cultures were aware of fossils and had a general
understanding of what they were. New scholarship examines the role that fossils
played in the development of Greek mythology, as well as Greek philosophy and
science. This presentation will not only examine what the Greeks knew about the
fossil record, but why it is that their knowledge was not passed on.

Americans love the idea of "free-market" capitalism when it works in their
favor, but as soon as someone else starts competing then those "free markets"
don't look so good. We saw this with the Dubai Ports deal, the CNOOK oil deal
from China, and we see it with American attitudes on immigration as well.

Ironically, blocking China from legitimately purchasing Unocal, an American
company that primarily owns oil properties in Asia, only resulted in pushing
China more towards dealing with Iran, thereby weakening our national security,
not protecting it.

Here is the deal though, Western capital has been going into markets all
around the world and in developing countries for hundreds of years. Western
capitalists and the Western public have been praising "free-market" capitalism
for the past century precisely because the West had all of the natural
advantages, and "free-markets" at that point meant foreign countries opening up
their boarders and their markets so that the West could dominate them, own their
infrastructure, and control their labor markets.

Now that global competition is becoming more equitable, and some foreign
countries are now in a position to actually participate in the markets in a
capacity other than being taken advantage of, well, now Westerners don't like it
so much. It was never really "free-market" capitalism in the first place, it was
just imperialism under a false banner.

Look at the immigration issue. Why are so many Republicans, who claim to be
champions of "free-market" capitalism, opposing open boarders with Mexico and
Canada (and the Caribbean for that matter)? If these people truly believe in
free-markets then they should be supporting open labor markets.

The false debate taking over immigration policy in the media is about whether
we should "lock down the boarders" or "legalize all of the current illegal
aliens".

This is completely bogus, and fails to address the real issue or even
recognize why we have illegal immigration in the first place.

There was an interesting phenomenon that took place when Imperial Japan
colonized Korea during the first half of the 20th century. Thousands of Koreans
fled Korea and illegally immigrated to Japan. The Japanese were killing and
enslaving the Koreans in Korea, so its not like the Koreans were going to Japan
because they loved the Japanese, they went to Japan because they could earn a
better living in Japan than they could in their home country, where they were
being exploited by Japan.

Enter NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed and signed by
the Republicans in the 1990s as a measure of "free-trade".

NAFTA was supposed to be a "win-win" for America, Canada, and Mexico, that
would "lift all boats", but since the signing of NAFTA Mexican immigration to
America to find decent paying jobs has skyrocketed.

The reason that we have immigration from "3rd world countries" into America
and Europe is because America and Europe are exploiting the 3rd world countries.
The West enriches itself by underpaying labor in third world countries and
essentially stealing their natural resources, so those countries have extremely
depressed economies. The depression of their economies is what enables the West
to enrich itself. The West is enriched at the expense of the 3rd world, so of
course people from 3rd world countries are better off moving here. By moving
here they remove themselves from the area of exploitation and go to the area
that is on the receiving end of the exchanges.

So, how do we solve the "immigration problem" with Mexico? Well, the first
thing to do would be to force American companies to start paying higher wages in
Mexico, but the problem that you have there is that we can't only do it in
Mexico, because then they will just move operations to Pakistan, or Vietnam, or
Indonesia, or China, or wherever, so really, the first step in solving the
immigration problem is a global minimum wage for Western countries. In other
words, American, European, Australian, Japanese, companies, etc. should be
forced into a pact where they have to pay workers in the 3rd world some minimum
wage.

For example, since 9/11 American business with Pakistan has increased dramatically due to changes in American import laws. The American government gives millions of dollars a year to the Pakistani government, under the banner of "foreign aid", yet American companies employ Pakistani workers for less than 37 cents an hour, or purchase goods from Pakistani contractors who pay less than 37 cents an hour. Why are we paying foreign aid to a country were we under-pay the workers?!?! Just pay the workers a decent wage and there will be no need for foreign aid, which in reality only goes to government officials and corrupt politicians who keep the people oppressed.

Secondly, to solve the problem with Mexico, instead of wasting money on
enforcement programs here, or on building absurd walls and fences, we should
spend that money helping Mexico develop its economy.

This should be completely obvious to any sane person.

Why waste resources on something non-productive, like building a wall or
getting more patrol officers, when those resources could be used to create more
capital? If we help make Mexico more productive then everyone will benefit,
mostly the Mexicans, who will then have no reason to immigrate to America in the
first place. Obviously Mexicans are hard workers, so there is no problem with
Mexican labor or desire. The Mexicans have a very strong desire to work hard and
get ahead, much stronger than most Americans, which is why they risk death to
come here and work their fingers to the bone.

The solution to the immigration "problem" is to stop calling it an
immigration problem and stop thinking about how we "protect ourselves" and
instead start thinking about how we can help others. We shouldn't help Mexico
just to help ourselves, but in the long run the objective of those people who
don't like immigrants will be achieved by helping Mexico.

Trying to "protect America" from globalization and immigration is a fools
game and what it really amounts to is trying to maintain an empire of
exploitation, but the world is not having it. We can't maintain what we had in
the past, because what we had in the past was exploitation.

It's like Whites in the South after the Civil War trying to figure out how
they could maintain the standard of living that they had before the Civil War.
Impossible. There was a fundamental shift of power. The Whites before the Civil
War had a way of life that was supported by the enslavement of over a
million Black people. Without that enslavement, without that exploitation, there
was no way to maintain the Plantations. There is no way to maintain the American
standard of living because the American standard of living is built on
exploitation. We better just face those facts and deal with it, because reality
is coming.

After the Civil War Whites tried to oppress the Black and keep them down, and
what good did that do? For 100 years after slavery was ended Whites worked to
keep Black less productive, they didn't help them succeed. As a result the
Southern economy was depressed for over 100 years. After the Civil Rights
movement of the 1960s, however, once we started helping Blacks succeed or at
least removing some of the roadblocks, the Southern economy has exploded.

What good could possibly come by keeping a segment of the population
oppressed? None, it hurts everyone. Helping Blacks to succeed helps everyone to
succeed.

The same with Mexico and with immigrants. We can keep playing this foolish
game of trying to keep labor depressed in foreign countries so that we can
exploit it, or we can engage in a "Civil Rights Movement" for the world and work
to improve wages, living conditions, and technology in Mexico and other
developing countries. We have to stop looking at foreign counties as a source of
"cheap labor" and start looking at them as partners.

That's the only way to actually solve the "immigration issue", but, of
course, none of the people in the media are talking about that...

The on going controversy in Afghanistan over the
fate of an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity, and has since been charged
with apostasy in Afghani court where they were seeking the death penalty under
Islamic law, and where the man is still in mortal danger, highlights the fact
that democracy itself has nothing to do with human rights.

Since this case has made international news,
President Bush and other administration officials have called on Afghani leaders
to “follow democratic principles”, but that is exactly what they are doing. All
that democracy means is “majority rule”.

Democracy in no way guarantees human rights or
even protects human rights at all, and this is one of the major problems with
the so-called “Bush Doctrine”, or really the neo-con doctrine, of pushing for
democracy in the Middle East.

The neo-cons act as though “democracy” = “human
rights”, but his is not the case. Democracy only means that the majority opinion
holds power, and if the majority opinion in a country is that people should be
killed for leaving Islam then following democratic principles is going to
contradict Western ideas of “human rights”.

Of course all of this presupposes that the
neo-cons actually even care about democracy at all, which is doubtful, as it is
more likely that the whole democracy rhetoric is just a front for the real
objective of material conquest and continued exploitation of foreign lands to
extract resources, which of course is going horribly wrong because the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan are costing much more than the neo-cons had predicted.

But putting that aside, the belief that
“democracy” has something to do with human rights, and that spreading democracy
is going to spread human rights, reveals a gross misunderstanding of Western
history.

Democracy is not what brought human rights to
Western Civilization, Secularism and Humanism did. Democracy was only the
vehicle by which secularism and humanism were brought to power.

Democracy resulted in an increase in human rights
in Western Civilization not because of some defacto power of democracy to
improve living conditions, but because there was a growing movement for
secularism and humanism in Western society at the time that was being kept down
by theocratic tyranny.

So, when the majority voice was able to come to
power, it brought secularism and humanism to power with it. In the Middle East,
however, the majority voice is not secular or humanist, instead it is theocratic
and fundamentalist, so democracy in the Middle East is not going to yield a
peaceful tolerant society, it is going to yield a militant, mobish , theocracy.

Freedom of conscience is not a democratic
principle, there is no such thing as a democratic principle, other than
“majority rules”. The majority is not always right and the majority is not
always good and the majority is not always nice and the majority is not always
tolerant, in fact, the majority is often not tolerant.

The reason that the policy of the Bush administration is failing and will
continue to fail, is that the policy of the Bush administration, if it even is
what it claims to be, only advocates democracy, yet democracy is not what
produced the freedom that we have in Western society, secularism and humanism
did. Without promoting secularism and humanism, democracy is useless.